> but the plot made no sense. I would think it's hard to appreciate it completely, but I don't see why the plot makes no sense - I think even if you ignore all

> but the plot made no sense. I would think it's hard to appreciate it completely, but I don't see why the plot makes no sense - I think even if you ignore all the references and the background, it has pretty good basic plot. Which part didn't work for you specifically? > She said that every element in the story is a jab at some aspect of life or politics from that era. This is a common thing for many literary works. Swift surely meant a lot of contemporary references in his Gulliver's Travels, most of which are lost on modern reader without special background, and Shakespeare was no stranger to contemporary matters either. And so on, and so forth. But we can choose to enjoy their works both with and without the background. If the literary work is good enough - and I think most of Bulgakov work is - it can be enjoyed even on the surface layer, without going in too deep. But if you don't like Dostoyevsky (I do not and feel no shame about it - it's just not my cup of tea) or Bulgakov - by all means Chekhov and Gogol have enough good stuff for anybody.